In this excellent podcast by Onitaset, he examines the futile use of the term “Racism/White Supremacy” (RWS). He also gives illustrious analogies and metaphors as to why the common focus Black people have on “ending racism” is a dead-end road for Afrikan people, and Afrikans would be better off not only revitalizing our culture and nations to fit the threats we collectively face in the 21st century, but to actively seek power through the institutions and tools that are most useful at present.
I once read an exchange with a Neely Fuller-ite who was trying to seek sympathy for an east Eurasian woman who was allegedly being victimized by RWS. You can read the post here entitled, “The Counter-Racist Cul-De-Sac”. The commentator in opposition to this characterization mentioned that the Asian woman was indeed described correctly by the western Eurasian white woman as not being an “American” (read: white European). Furthermore, this east Eurasian woman had a west Eurasian boyfriend which is typical of these white-identified east Eurasian woman who are raised in the USA by parents who want them to be accepted by the dominate society as a member of the “model race” or an “honorary white”. The Fuller-ite couldn’t understand that the commentator was arguing that RWS only exists because it is a convenient excuse for Afrikans not organizing our own resources for achieving power, and that if the east Eurasian woman truly didn’t like RWS, she should re-patriate to an east Eurasian country which has plenty of nuclear weapons and a robust economy where she will be a first-class citizen. This obvious solution which was based in reality was rejected by the Fuller-ite because he needed to believe that “whites control everything and gave the nuclear weapons to the east Eurasians, therefore whites are still in control”, even if she decides to re-patriate. This is such a self-defeating position because it disables us, Afrikan people, from taking the initiative to secure our own survival. The west Eurasian woman went on to say that she was a supporter of Donald Trump and she voted for him so that “we can get you people out of our country”.
A white woman like that would be regarded as a right-wing extremist or a white nationalist. Regardless of her label, I implore you to read the following article from a typical “white-leftist” whom you Afrikan people think is your friend and the last bulwark against the racist right. You can read the full article at this link.
To summarize the article, the writer basically stated that she lived in Senegal for a year as a Peace Corps volunteer, and interspersed among the references to the “brotherhood of man”, “personal fulfillment”, and “adopted family” tripe that these fake liberals routinely espouse, she states a viewpoint similar to that of a right-wing fanatic. Namely, that Afrikan and west Eurasian (American) cultures are too different to be compatible, and that the solution is to let Afrikans solve their own problems and to keep America white by not allowing Afrikan migration to the USA! This mind you after she was fully funded and welcomed by Afrikans to live for a year in their country. But, be that as it may, this statement of hers is counter-intuitive the negros who need to be part of the “Kumbaya Klan”. (pun intended) However, increasingly, with the ease of global travel, these white lefties are returning to North America and Europe disillusioned with their grand schemes of building a raceless society, and are deciding to protect the legacy of what their forbearers stole through rape, enslavement, theft, murder, and war.
Onitaset makes the brilliant insight that what is called RWS by Neely Fuller-ites is actually warfare. Therefore, any approach to solving this problem should be decidedly warlike. Now the definition of warfare is broad and takes many varied methods, from economic warfare, to psychological warfare, and most apparently conventional warfare, which is actually the least effective and most expensive in terms of energy, and manpower. It usually is the last stage of warfare once all other forms have been exhausted or proven ineffective.
I implore Afrikan nationalists, Garveyites, Pro-Blacks, Afrikan Spiritualists, Nationists, and members of the Conscious Community to consider dropping both terms “Racism” and “White Supremacy” and adopting new terms. Kamau Kambon describes it as “white world domination by terror”, others call it ethno-nationalism, I prefer the term white hegemony which I defined in my blog post “Why Mulattoes and other Hybrids are not Afrikan“. It is also in my book, ACBN: A Primer. Onitaset has written a couple of books which I also implore you to purchase, read, and consider their ideas as well. It is abundantly clear that many of the ideas of the last century have failed or been impotent in the face of the dangers we face. With these books and new concepts, it is time to reconsider the approach we are taking to gain power for Afrikan survival and sovereignty.
Article by Lumumba Afrika
In March 2011, NATO launched a war in Libya expressly aimed at toppling the government of longtime leader Muammar Qadhafi. The US and its allies flew some 26,000 sorties over Libya and launched hundreds of cruise missiles, destroying the government’s ability to resist rebel forces.
US President Barack Obama and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, along with their European counterparts, insisted the military intervention was being carried out for humanitarian reasons. But political scientist Micah Zenko (Foreign Policy, 3/22/16) used NATO’s own materials to show how “the Libyan intervention was about regime change from the very start.”
NATO supported an array of rebel groups fighting on the ground in Libya, many of which were dominated by Islamist extremists and harbored violently racist views. Militants in the NATO-backed rebel stronghold of Misurata even referred to themselves in 2011 as “the brigade for purging slaves, black skin”—an eerie foreshadowing of the horrors that were to come.
The war ended in October 2011. US and European aircraft attacked Qadhafi’s convoy, and he was brutally murdered by extremist rebels—sodomized with a bayonet. Secretary Clinton, who played a decisive role in the war, declared live on CBS News (10/20/11), “We came, we saw, he died!” The Libyan government dissolved soon after.
In the six years since, Libya has been roiled by chaos and bloodshed. Multiple would-be governments are competing for control of the oil-rich country, and in some areas there is still no functioning central authority. Many thousands of people have died, although the true numbers are impossible to verify. Millions of Libyans have been displaced—a staggering number, nearly one-third of the population, had fled to neighboring Tunisia by 2014.
Corporate media, however, have largely forgotten about the key role NATO played in destroying Libya’s government, destabilizing the country and empowering human traffickers.
Moreover, even the few news reports that do acknowledge NATO’s complicity in the chaos in Libya do not go a step further and detail the well-documented, violent racism of the NATO-backed Libyan rebels who ushered in slavery after ethnically cleansing and committing brutal crimes against black Libyans.
The flashy CNN multimedia report included bonuses galore: two videos, two animated gifs, two photos and a chart. But something was missing: The 1,000-word story made no mention of NATO, or the 2011 war that destroyed Libya’s government, or Muammar Qadhafi, or any kind of historical and political context whatsoever.
Despite these huge flaws, the CNN report was widely celebrated, and made an impact in a corporate media apparatus that otherwise cares little about North Africa. A flurry of media reports followed. These stories overwhelmingly spoke of slavery in Libya as an apolitical and timeless human rights issue, not as a political problem rooted in very recent history.
In subsequent stories, when Libyan and United Nations officials announced they would launch an investigation into the slave auctions, CNN (11/17/17, 11/20/17) again failed to mention the 2011 war, let alone NATO’s role in it.
One CNN report (11/21/17) on a UN Security Council meeting noted, “Ambassadors from Senegal to Sweden also blamed trafficking’s root causes: unstable countries, poverty, profits from slave trading and lack of legal enforcement.” But it failed to explain why Libya is unstable.
Another 1,200-word CNN follow-up article (11/23/17) was just as obfuscatory. It was only in the 35th paragraph of this 36-graf story that a Human Rights Watch researcher noted, “Libyan interim authorities have been dragging their feet on virtually all investigations they supposedly started, yet never concluded, since the 2011 uprising.” NATO’s leadership in this 2011 uprising was, however, ignored.
An Agence France-Presse news wire that was published by Voice of America (11/17/17) and other websites similarly failed to provide any historical context for the political situation in Libya. “Testimony collected by AFP in recent years has revealed a litany of rights abuses at the hands of gang leaders, human traffickers and the Libyan security forces,” the article said, but it did not recount anything that happened before 2017.
In an account of the large protests that erupted outside Libyan embassies in Europe and Africa in response to reports of slave auctions, Reuters (11/20/17) indicated, “Six years after the fall of Muammar Gaddafi, Libya is still a lawless state where armed groups compete for land and resources and people-smuggling networks operate with impunity.” But it did not provide any more information about how Qadhafi was toppled.
A report in the Huffington Post (11/22/17), later republished by AOL (11/27/17), did concede that Libya is “one of the world’s most unstable [sic], mired in conflict since dictator Muammar Gaddafi was ousted and killed in 2011.” It made no mention of NATO’s leadership in that ousting and killing.
Part of the problem has been the unwillingness of international organizations to point out the responsibility of powerful Western governments. In his statement on the reports of slavery in Libya, United Nations Secretary-General António Guterres (11/20/17) did not mention anything about what has happened politically inside the North African nation in the past six years. The UN News Centre report (11/20/17) on Guterres’ comments was just as contextless and uninformative, as was the press release (11/21/17) on the issue from the International Organization for Migration.
Al Jazeera (11/26/17) did cite an IOM official who suggested, in Al Jazeera‘s words, that “the international community should pay more attention to post-Gaddafi Libya.” But the media outlet provided no context as to how Libya became post-Qadhafi in the first place. In fact, Al Jazeera‘s source went out of his way to make the issue apolitical: “Modern-day slavery is widespread around the world and Libya is by no means unique.”
While it is true that slavery and human trafficking happen in other countries, this widespread media narrative depoliticizes the problem in Libya, which has its roots in explicit political decisions made by governments and their leaders: namely, the choice to overthrow Libya’s stable government, turning the oil-rich North African nation into a failed state ruled by competing warlords and militias, some of which are involved in and profit from slavery and trafficking.
When Western governments were hoping to militarily intervene in the country in the lead-up to March 19, 2011, there was a constant torrent of media reports on the evils of Qadhafi and his government—including a healthy dose of fake news (Salon, 9/16/16). Major newspapers staunchly supported the NATO intervention, and made no secret of their pro-war editorial lines.
When the US government and its allies were preparing for war, the corporate media apparatus did what it does best, and helped sell yet another military intervention to the public.
In the years since, on the other hand, there has been exponentially less interest in the disastrous aftermath of that NATO war. There will be short spikes of interest, as there was in early 2017. The most recent spurt of press coverage was inspired by the publication of CNN‘s shocking video footage. But the coverage invariably rapidly peaks and goes away.
The catastrophe Libya might endure after the collapse of its state had been predictable at the time. Qadhafi himself had warned NATO member states, while they were waging war against him, that they were going to unleash chaos throughout the region. Yet Western leaders—Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton in the US, David Cameron in the UK, Nicolas Sarkozy in France, Stephen Harper in Canada—ignored Qadhafi’s admonition and violently toppled his government.
Even from the small number of media reports on slavery in Libya that do manage to acknowledge NATO’s responsibility for destabilizing the country, nevertheless, something is still missing.
Looking back at Libya’s anti-Qadhafi rebels, both during and after the 2011 war, it is very clear that hardline anti-black racism was widespread in the NATO-backed opposition. A 2016 investigation by the British House of Common’s Foreign Affairs Committee (Salon, 9/16/16) acknowledged that “militant Islamist militias played a critical role in the rebellion from February 2011 onwards.” But many rebels were not just fundamentalist; they were also violently racist.
It is unfortunately no surprise that these extremist Libyan militants later enslaved African refugees and migrants: They were hinting at it from the very beginning.
Most American and European media coverage at the time of NATO’s military intervention was decidedly pro-rebel. When reporters got on the ground, however, they began publishing a few more nuanced pieces that hinted at the reality of the opposition. These were insignificant in number, but they are enlightening and worth revisiting.
Three months into the NATO war, in June 2011, the Wall Street Journal‘s Sam Dagher (6/21/11) reported from Misrata, Libya’s third-largest city and a major hub for the opposition, where he noted he saw rebel slogans like “the brigade for purging slaves, black skin.”
Dahger indicated that the rebel stronghold of Misrata was dominated by “tightly knit white merchant families,” whereas “the south of the country, which is predominantly black, mainly backs Col. Gadhafi.”
Other graffiti in Misrata read “Traitors keep out.” By “traitors,” rebels were referring to Libyans from the town of Tawergha, which the Journal explained is “inhabited mostly by black Libyans, a legacy of its 19th-century origins as a transit town in the slave trade.”
Dagher reported that some Libyan rebel leaders were “calling for the expulsion of Tawerghans from the area” and “banning Tawergha natives from ever working, living or sending their children to schools in Misrata.” He added that predominately Tawergha neighborhoods in Misrata had already been emptied. Black Libyans were “gone or in hiding, fearing revenge attacks by Misratans, amid reports of bounties for their capture.”
The rebel commander Ibrahim al-Halbous told the Journal, “Tawergha no longer exists, only Misrata.”
Al-Halbous would later reappear in a report by the Sunday Telegraph (9/11/11), reiterating to the British newspaper, “Tawarga no longer exists.” (When Halbous was injured in September, the New York Times—9/20/11—portrayed him sympathetically as a martyr in the heroic fight against Qadhafi. The Halbous brigade has in the years since become an influential militia in Libya.)
Like Dagher, the Telegraph‘s Andrew Gilligan drew attention to the slogan painted on the road between Misrata and Tawergha: “the brigade for purging slaves [and] black skin.”
Gilligan reported from Tawergha, or rather from the remnants of the majority-black town, which he noted had “been emptied of its people, vandalized and partly burned by rebel forces.” A rebel leader said of the dark-skinned residents, “We said if they didn’t go, they would be conquered and imprisoned. Every single one of them has left, and we will never allow them to come back.”
Gilligan noted “a racist undercurrent. Many Tawargas, though neither immigrants nor Gaddafi’s much-ballyhooed African mercenaries, are descended from slaves, and are darker than most Libyans.”
The North Atlantic Treaty Organization assisted these virulently racist rebels in Misrata. NATO forces frequently launched air attacks on the city. French fighter jets shot down Libyan planes over Misrata. The US and UK fired cruise missiles at Libyan government targets, and the US launched Predator drone strikes. The Canadian air force also attacked Libyan forces, pushing them out of Misrata.
In a public relations video NATO published in May 2011, early in the Libya war, the Western military alliance openly admitted that it intentionally allowed “Libyan rebels to transport arms from Benghazi to Misrata.” Political scientist Micah Zenko (Foreign Policy, 3/22/16) pointed out the implications of this video: “A NATO surface vessel stationed in the Mediterranean to enforce an arms embargo did exactly the opposite, and NATO was comfortable posting a video demonstrating its hypocrisy.”
Throughout the war and after, Libyan rebels continued carrying out racist sectarian attacks against their black compatriots. These attacks have been well documented by mainstream human rights organizations.
Human Rights Watch’s longtime executive director Kenneth Roth cheered on NATO intervention in Libya in 2011, calling the UN Security Council’s unanimous endorsement of a no-fly zone a “remarkable” confirmation of the so-called “responsibility to protect” doctrine.
Roth’s organization, however, could not ignore the crimes anti-Qadhafi militants committed against dark-skinned Libyans and migrants.
In September 2011, when the war was still ongoing, Human Rights Watch reported on Libyan rebels’ “arbitrary arrests and abuse of African migrant workers and black Libyans assumed to be [pro-Qadhafi] mercenaries.”
Then in October, the top US human rights organization noted that Libyan militias were “terrorizing the displaced residents of the nearby town of Tawergha,” the majority-black community that had been a stronghold of support for Qadhafi. “The entire town of 30,000 people is abandoned—some of it ransacked and burned—and Misrata brigade commanders say the residents of Tawergha should never return,” HRW added. Witnesses “gave credible accounts of some Misrata militias shooting unarmed Tawerghans, and of arbitrary arrests and beatings of Tawerghan detainees, in a few cases leading to death.”
In 2013, HRW reported further on the ethnic cleansing of the black community of Tawergha. The human rights organization, whose chief had so effusively supported the military intervention, wrote: “The forced displacement of roughly 40,000 people, arbitrary detentions, torture and killings are widespread, systematic and sufficiently organized to be crimes against humanity.”
These atrocities are undeniable, and they lead a path straight to the enslavement of African refugees and migrants. But to acknowledge NATO’s complicity in empowering these racist extremist militants, corporate media would have to acknowledge NATO’s role in the 2011 regime change war in Libya in the first place.
Article by Global Research
I remember when I was younger there was the sitcom Different Strokes(1978-1986). It starred Gary Coleman,Todd Bridges,Conrad Bain and Dana Plato. Coleman and Bridges played two black brothers from Harlem. When their mother passed away they were adopted by white wealthy businessman Phillip Drummond. Even back then they were giving us the “white savior” propaganda. Hollywood is known for giving us this type of garbage.
Different Strokes was a huge success in the eighties. So of course Hollywood tried to duplicate it again. They created the show Webster(1983-1989). The show starred child actor Emmanuel Lewis. The plot was about a little black boy who lost his parents in a car crash. They even used the same plot as Different Strokes. They couldn’t even be creative and come up with a different storyline. Don’t be fooled by these shows. They were not just sweet and innocent sitcoms. They had an agenda. It’s obvious these sitcoms were geared towards black people. They were designed to make us believe that whites are our saviors and we should look to them for guidance and acceptance. They want us to forget that they lynched us,raped us and enslaved us for hundreds of years and was never paid back even after we were “freed”. During slavery we lost our language,customs and cultural identity. We were treated less then humans. Dogs get more respect than black people. Which is why sitcoms like this are so dangerous. It makes us believe the fallacy that our oppressors are our friends. Now we emulate Europeans in every way. Television and films have a way of altering black consciousness. We speak English or Spanish,dress like them,wear the same clothes they do and eat the same food. This puts European in a parental position. And after years of social engineering they have become our psychological parents. When black men dress and talk like white men he is imitating a white man. If he thinks black women are ugly and worthless he is imitating a white man. If he beats up black women he’s imitating white men. When a black woman wears a blonde weave and blue contacts she’s imitating a white woman. When a black woman feels all black men are useless losers she has the mind of a white woman. It reminds me of a quote by the great Pan African/psychologist Amos Wilson once said. Wilson said that every one has a biological father and psychological father. Wilson also mentioned that even when black men get involved with crime he is imitating his criminal white father.
Amos Wilson summed it up best:
“As long as the “black man” is involved in “black-on-black violence and crime” (unwarranted internal conflict: “gang turf battles,” “civil wars” and otherwise), he, then, will not have time to engage in what must be his true mission: THE OVERTHROW OF EUROPEAN DOMINATION! As I’ve often said, our attention must be diverted . As I said, once in a psychology class, why do so many “black men” kill other “black men?” Is because they have not yet decided to kill white men. THAT IS THE ULTIMATE TRUTH! THAT IS THE ULTIMATE TRUTH! The cowardly black man has not yet decided to really deal with his true enemy! And, he displaces his frustration and his cowardice upon his own people. He attacks and uses his own, and he abuses his women and uses his children, and terrorizes his community (nation). He is great and bold to take out a gun (his army) to blow away another black man’s brain , but he has yet to take up the gun (use his army) and blow out the brain of his true enemy (stop alien exploitation, domination, encroachment, etc.).
He would march around the world and shoot some other man, but he won’t take up the arms against his true enemy. He can only, then, prove his “boldness” by an attack on his own, and by the destruction of his own. I do not see a common black criminal as a revolutionary. Because the common black criminal have the same motivation as the white ruling and middle classes. The white ruling and middle classes got a BMW, he wants a BMW. So if it means selling poison to our children, he sells poison to our children. If it means terrorizing the African community (robbing the coffers of African nations) to get the BMW (white/alien men’s status symbols), he’s going to do it. In other words, he approaches his world thieving, killing, etc., the same way his psychological father approaches the world: thieving, killing, etc. Everywhere this white man has stepped in the world there have been thieving, killing, etc.
The black criminal is but an imitator of his “psychological white father”. Therefore, we have “black-on-black crime and violence,” and “black-on-black crime and violence” is a necessity (assures politico-socioeconomic destabilization) for European power. It’s not the intention for whites to remove crime in the African community (end internal conflicts in African nations), it is their intentions to contain crime to the African community. You talk about the corruption of the police: it’s easy to corrupt a police man/woman when he/she is guarding a people that they do not care about (identify with). And when the corruption of those people he/she is guarding ultimately…MAINTAINS THE POWER POSITION!
I know this might not be a popular viewpoint so let me state that this is simply my position. I do not condone, nor can I excuse the actions of Nate Parker when he was a younger man. As a survivor of sexual assault I understand first hand that it leaves scares that one must learn to live with. I can only hope that he has learned how devastating his behavior was, and become an advocate against sexual assault. I must say my concern is that personal issue with Parker threatens to take away from a film that we need to see. Too many of us have supported people that have done very terrible things in the name of being entertained. However, this isn’t just about entertainment but a story that needs to be told.
I personally find the timing of the Nate Parker story interesting. It came and caused some to say I won’t see the film because I refuse to support Parker. I truly believe this was the overall agenda of the media. Think about it… how many films do we have that depict the enslavement periods? We have quite a few, varying in accurately, but how many depict uprising? To many say we should move on from this period because it is in the past. We need to put slavery behind us we are told.
However, no one tells Holocaust survivors and descendants to move on. Yet the bottom line is there is plenty of accepted open dialog on the Holocaust. Germany has had to reckon with that history. Truth be told… the reason we can’t just move on is because America has never reckoned with the enslavement of black people. It has never been dealt with. Yes, we are aware it happened but the ramifications of it have never been dealt with.
Right now we have schools trying to rewrite history in an attempt to erase the evil of Americans past. Instead of facing where we have been as a nation… we are trying to wash it away. That is simply impossible. We need the arts (film, literature, art, music) to tell our story. It’s important that it be told all of the enslaved did not accept their condition lying down. It’s important for the very psyche of American born blacks to know yes we did fight back. The depiction of us in the world is not always accurate. It’s important that other people of color, as well as our African brothers and sisters, know our plight. It needs to be our story told by us.
This film is bigger than Nate Parker, and its need is great. I don’t condone his behavior as a man, yet I appreciate his courage to make such a film. As one who majored in English, and History, I will be going see this film at least twice. I will view it once for myself, and once to write a review. I support the telling of our stories. The voices of our ancestors have been silenced from us for far too long. We need to feel their strength and understand their sacrifice. I’m going see Birth of a Nation, and I hope many of us will be in the theatre to support the telling of our history… by us. Birth of a Nation releases in theaters nationwide October 7, 2016.
Article written by Christian Starr